• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

harz99

Member
Joined
14 Jul 2009
Messages
726
Mr Heaton-Harris doesn't understand the rail and bus industries very well then.

Bus/coach will say - not unless you pay for the vehicles as we can't afford it.

Rail industry will say - unable to guarantee PSVAR compliant vehicles so no trains running equals no RRB.

A victory for whom, certainly not rail users, disabled or otherwise?

The following story from the trade magazine “Route One” puts the ball firmly in the rail industry’s court.

https://www.route-one.net/operators/rail-replacement-psvar-compliance-expected/
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
However, Mr Heaton-Harris adds: “I accept that were all non-compliant coaches and buses removed from providing rail replacement services there would be a disproportionately negative effect on the provision of… services for all passengers, given the number of compliant vehicles in the market.”

I think he's quite aware of the issues. He's just telling RDG that they'll be the ones catching the blame when it all goes wrong.
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,383
Location
Back office
The hire price for PSVAR coaches is going up - might be a good time for operators to invest in one.
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
Mr Heaton-Harris doesn't understand the rail and bus industries very well then.

Bus/coach will say - not unless you pay for the vehicles as we can't afford it.

Rail industry will say - unable to guarantee PSVAR compliant vehicles so no trains running equals no RRB.

A victory for whom, certainly not rail users, disabled or otherwise?

Bus and coach operators will provide what they get paid for. If the rail industry want PSVR coaches it’ll have to pay for them.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,910
Location
Hope Valley
Not during current franchises; there is no mechanism for them to do this.
So no 'change of law' provision, then? Strictly a case of 'lie where they fall'? Presumably it will just bring forward the 'hand the keys to OLR'/'exhaust the parent company guarantee' dates?
 
Last edited:

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
So no 'change of law' provision, then? Strictly a case of 'lie where they fall'? Presumably it will just bring forward the 'hand the keys to OLR'/'exhaust the parent company guarantee' dates?

Don't Network Rail pay for the RRBs when there's a line closure?

That is the taxpayer paying in effect.
 

harz99

Member
Joined
14 Jul 2009
Messages
726
Bus and coach operators will provide what they get paid for. If the rail industry want PSVR coaches it’ll have to pay for them.

And if Bus and Coach Operators just decide they don't want that type of work, or the rail industry decides it doesn't want to or can't provide RRBs, what then?
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Don't Network Rail pay for the RRBs when there's a line closure?

That is the taxpayer paying in effect.
Not really. Network Rail does pay Schedule 4 Bus Compensation, but the TOCs pay Network Rail Schedule 4 ACS, which is supposed to cover the cost of Schedule 4 to NR. It's all a jolly money go round, but either the taxpayer or the passenger has to pick up the bill in the long term.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Not really. Network Rail does pay Schedule 4 Bus Compensation, but the TOCs pay Network Rail Schedule 4 ACS, which is supposed to cover the cost of Schedule 4 to NR. It's all a jolly money go round, but either the taxpayer or the passenger has to pick up the bill in the long term.
NR have paid more out than in over the last 6 or 7 years.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
And if Bus and Coach Operators just decide they don't want that type of work, or the rail industry decides it doesn't want to or can't provide RRBs, what then?
This is the question that everyone seems to be avoiding. If coach operators don't want to provide vehicles any more then the TOCs would need to have their own. They'd need somewhere to store them and of course they'd need to recruit drivers as well.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
This is the question that everyone seems to be avoiding. If coach operators don't want to provide vehicles any more then the TOCs would need to have their own. They'd need somewhere to store them and of course they'd need to recruit drivers as well.

as well as a significantly sized operator licence
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
And if Bus and Coach Operators just decide they don't want that type of work, or the rail industry decides it doesn't want to or can't provide RRBs, what then?

Same as has happened today (for weather reasons[1]) - nothing at all.

[1] Which is a bit of a lie, as the service bus is still operating between Preston and Lancaster, so a RRB would not be unsafe.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Same as has happened today (for weather reasons[1]) - nothing at all.

[1] Which is a bit of a lie, as the service bus is still operating between Preston and Lancaster, so a RRB would not be unsafe.

Quite, but that's not to say that a bus/coach operator is willing to put more of his vehicles out in poor conditions on the road today than where he is already contractually obliged to do.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Quite, but that's not to say that a bus/coach operator is willing to put more of his vehicles out in poor conditions on the road today than where he is already contractually obliged to do.

I bet they would. Conditions around Preston-Lancaster on the M6 are not poor, and train services are running from Preston.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I bet they would. Conditions around Preston-Lancaster on the M6 are not poor, and train services are running from Preston.

Probably depends on what payments are being made for a turn out today. If it's just the standard amount then many won't bother today with RRB as an emergency job - even without considering any PSVAR issues.
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,383
Location
Back office
I'll be out driving rail replacement in London today. How I'm getting to the depot to pick up the bus is unknown as yet as all the rail routes in that direction are disrupted.

Having driven a red London bus on Stratford to Romford where a bit of wind in Chadwell Heath blew one of the front doors into the gangway, I wouldn't blame operators for being cautious.
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,383
Location
Back office
This is the question that everyone seems to be avoiding. If coach operators don't want to provide vehicles any more then the TOCs would need to have their own. They'd need somewhere to store them and of course they'd need to recruit drivers as well.

That is never going to happen. TOCs are private businesses and won't do that unless it is specifically paid for by somebody. It is uneconomical to have a fleet of buses just to do rail replacement. It costs a fortune for storage, insurance per vehicle, cash reserve per vehicle, tax, PSV MOT, periodic maintenance inspections and servicing and paying transport managers - and that's before a bus can legally turn a wheel in service. A bus needs to be out at least 3 or 4 days a week to make it worthwhile to keep. Then there's the issue of having a labour force that wants to do work of such a volatile nature - rail replacement drivers often have multiple jobs or do other types of driving work to earn a stable income.

I'm conscious there have been TOC liveried buses in the past. Much like other branded buses (Avon, Google, The Sun etc.) these tend to be operated by an established bus firm on a contractual basis.
 
Last edited:

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,383
Location
Back office
And if Bus and Coach Operators just decide they don't want that type of work, or the rail industry decides it doesn't want to or can't provide RRBs, what then?

If the work pays enough to justify procuring compliant vehicles then the bus operators will do it! If not then the only vehicles that will be available will be buses that just so happen to be spare when rail replacement is required - and there are not enough of these to go around at the moment.

Very, very few operators will procure buses solely to do rail replacement unless there's a guarantee of enough continuous work to justify the outlay.
 
Last edited:

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
Very, very few operators will procure buses solely to do rail replacement unless there's a guarantee of enough continuous work to justify the outlay.

That is true. However, there have been periods of time (eg West Coast Route Modernisation) where it has been suggested that coach operators have been able to afford an upgrade to their fleet on the back of a lot of RRB work.
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,383
Location
Back office
That is true. However, there have been periods of time (eg West Coast Route Modernisation) where it has been suggested that coach operators have been able to afford an upgrade to their fleet on the back of a lot of RRB work.

Definitely - a big job can put a dent in the costs of upgrading a fleet but it's quite a lot of days of work that have to be carried out to earn enough profit to invest in modding an existing vehicle to comply and quite a lot more to purchase newer vehicles.

It was only declared in September that rail replacement fell within scope of PSVAR. Most of the industry was preparing to cover their core work over the last few years to meet the PSVAR regs with the understanding that existing vehicles would be good for rail work - those who went for 100% PSVAR fleets are in a strong position to make a good return on their investments.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If the issue is that the TOCs don't get enough revenue from fares and subsidy to pay enough does that also stink?

Not my problem, just like it's not my problem if airlines lose money by having to pay me the legally required EU261 compensation.

If as a TOC you don't like the responsibilities you've signed up for at the price you've signed up for, hand back the keys and go away; you are not wanted.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
If the issue is purely that TOCs aren't paying enough, then that stinks.

I assume that TOCs are used to paying out peanuts to coach operators for RR work given some of the tatty, elderly, stuff that they used to get away with. Now, they can't do that as the tatty coaches won't meet the requirements. To move up to good quality, psvar-compliant, vehicles will certainly create a big extra cost for whoever is paying the bill.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,910
Location
Hope Valley
For Control Periods 4 and 5 the Schedule 4 Restrictions of Use regime included ‘cover’ for bus costs (as well as revenue loss) and the structure of Access Charge Supplements reflected this. The TOCs are ‘held harmless’ by the DfT (or equivalent franchising or concessioning body) to financial changes at a Periodic Review. Obviously assumptions are made about future bus costs, no doubt based heavily on previous experience. Thus the TOCs have had relatively low risk in this area.

I have been retired too long to know whether a similar arrangement has been applied for Control Period 6 but would be surprised if it hadn’t been.

The situation would now appear to be that RRB costs are likely to rise significantly because of changes in legal understanding since the Periodic Review 2018, carried out with the full involvement of public bodies, notably ORR, DfT and Network Rail. I can understand why thinly capitalised TOCs are uneasy that they have to take all the ‘hit’ if they had been planning more or less on business as usual.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
NR have paid more out than in over the last 6 or 7 years.
Well Sch4 is designed to punish the infrastructure provider if they fail to give long enough notice. So, working as intended, maybe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top